Guest viewing is limited

Daily WHO Reports for the Coronavirus Outbreak (Link)

Durg50 said:
yep, two countries with totally out of their depth leaders, who got where they are playing on the basest nationalistic tendencies of their voter-base.
Click to expand...
Also, they have good hair
 
namae said:
Not sure if I understand your para re the UK properly. But the UK and JPN, and just about every other developed country is signed up to the Covax plan - basically sharing the vaccine with poorer nations. Sounds like Biden is just bringing the US back into the "international fold" re WHO/Covax.
Click to expand...

I don't recall exactly which British official it was...was it Johnson?? He was quoted saying something, regarding the Oxford vaccine, along the lines of--if the UK develops the first vaccine, it's only appropriate that the UK have priority. I'm not opposed to us sharing access with the rest of the world, as it will obviously be necessary to end the pandemic. I am opposed to giving the entire world the same right to first access as Americans if it's an American-developed vaccine that America paid for.

But one area where I absolutely supported Trump was in his decision to cut off funding and ties with the WHO. The WHO, which spent the critical first months of the outbreak covering for China; whose director assured us there is "no evidence of human-to-human transmission," when the CCP knew for sure that was bullshit; whose director criticized Trump's decision to shut our borders to Chinese, calling it an overreaction; which acted as China's mouthpiece, even though China is a minority financial backer and the U.S. was paying the majority of the WHO's bills. If there rest of the world wants to bend over and take orders from China and the WHO, I could honestly not care less. As far as I'm concerned that's just jingles because the rest of the world doesn't have two effective vaccines about to receive approval and begin distribution while America (and Germany) does. And, at least for another two and a half months, America has a president willing to happily tell the WHO to fuck itself and hoard the vaccines for American citizens first.

Joe Biden has promised to begin refunding the WHO and has assembled a team of advisors who are committed to selling out America's interests for silly, utopian humanitarian ideals. That's his right to do so as the incoming president, but I'm just grateful for the critical time to act that we still have from now until the moment he stutters through the oath of office and ushers in another era where the rest of the world will again come before America's best interests.
 
Last edited:
Keihan said:
I am opposed to giving the entire world the same right to first access as Americans if it's an American-developed vaccine that America paid for.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell that's not what's being suggested:

"Reasonable national partiality does not permit retaining more vaccine than the amount needed to keep the rate of transmission (Rt) below 1, when that vaccine could instead mitigate substantial COVID-19–related harms in other countries that have been unable to keep Rt below 1 through ongoing public-health efforts. The marginal benefit of additional doses of vaccine in a country able to keep Rt below 1 generally will pale in comparison to the potential benefits to countries whose Rt remains above 1—at least until booster vaccination is needed to maintain immunity. Hence, with Rt below 1, there will not be sufficient vaccine-preventable harm to justify retaining vaccine. When a government reaches the limit of national partiality, it should release vaccines for other countries. This makes an account of fair allocation among countries relevant to reasonable national governments."

It seems that America would still get first access until it's rate of transmission was below 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tabanico and just4fun
newbie said:
As far as I can tell that's not what's being suggested:
Click to expand...

True, if you read it carefully it actually says US of A can keep all the vaccine it wants.

This makes an account of fair allocation among countries relevant to reasonable national governments."
Click to expand...

I highlighted the important part; you are welcome.

It seems that America would still get first access until it's rate of transmission was below 1.
Click to expand...

And as long as they can themselves calculate the rate themselves...
 
Lo
newbie said:
It seems that America would still get first access until it's rate of transmission was below 1.
Click to expand...

I don't like that number, and more importantly I don't trust any arbitrary number being thrown out by any government agency or bureaucrat as a guideline for restricting access to something we developed and paid for. The city government here is using "transmission rates" as a guideline for re-opening and it's utter horseshit, which is why we're currently seeing spike #3.

As I said, I like Trump's rationale. America will prioritize vaccinating Americans until the last American who wants to be vaccinated, gets vaccinated. After that, we're perfectly happy to begin global distribution and the obligatory charity work that comes with being America. And given the number of idiot fucking anti-vaxxers in this country, that day could come a lot sooner than most think, and probably sooner than waiting for the arbitrary transmission rate of "1."
 
Keihan said:
It's just that I operate from a standpoint of fear, intertwined with selfishness, bolstered by a healthy dose of bigotry. And I want the vaccine now. If the poorer half of the world has to wait another six months, or nine months, then that's just too bad for them. America's vaccine, Americans get vaccinated first. And I believe the UK is operating on basically the exact same rationale. As all of our countries should. It's human nature.
Click to expand...

you know, to a lot of people, what you say is 'human nature' actually isn't their nature.

A lot of people actually do care a lot about the well-being of others, including people in different countries who they will never meet, and have no problem sharing things. I think this may be a root of a lot of the issues between republicans and democrats on things like healthcare. People are just so different in the way they think and cannot come around to the other point of view.

For me, thinking one person deserves healthcare because they are rich, and another doesn't deserve the same level because they are poor, is just so fundamentally away from the way that I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Karbon, Tabanico, Acid Burn and 5 others
Durg50 said:
you know, to a lot of people, what you say is 'human nature' actually isn't their nature.

A lot of people actually do care a lot about the well-being of others, including people in different countries who they will never meet, and have no problem sharing things. I think this may be a root of a lot of the issues between republicans and democrats on things like healthcare. People are just so different in the way they think and cannot come around to the other point of view.

For me, thinking one person deserves healthcare because they are rich, and another doesn't deserve the same level because they are poor, is just so fundamentally away from the way that I think.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I believe humans, by design, are inherently selfish and greedy. It's the basic survival instinct of any animal. Obviously there are those who are far more altruistic than the norm, but I would consider them to be a social aberration. But that's just my opinion, and again, I come at this from a selfish position: I want my family vaccinated and safe. Until that happens, I don't care if an entire continent ceases to have life; but after I get what I want, I could not care less if Joe Biden ships every last vial to Nigeria where the natives end up drinking the vaccine or sticking it up their asses.

But since you bring up the topic of Republican VS Democrat positions on social issues like healthcare, I would like to point out a glaring fact that you will never, ever hear on the evening news: Republicans and conservatives in America give more to charity than Democrats and liberals. That's just plain fact. It's been that way for decades. Here's a short article by an objective non-profit organization that looks deeper into that statistic. It's not to outright conclude that those on the right are more charitable than those on the left, but the numbers make for a compelling case suggesting so.

Personally, I think that Republicans are more charitable because of the inherent religious component. Conservatives Christians, particularly wealthy conservative Christians, believe in giving directly to charity, while those on the left favor a system where a large, dominant system of government enforces collections on the wealthy and organized redistribution of their wealth. And the latter goes against everything our country was founded on.

Personally, I'm in no way against helping the poor. However, I probably have very different views on who should benefit from it. If I'm going to donate my own assets/money--and I do, regularly, believe it or not--I would prefer helping the struggling elderly and military veterans. The elderly, by virtue of having lived that long, are more likely to have contributed something positive to society and in any event I believe in the right to age with some semblance of dignity. Military veterans, if they're in need of assistance, are more likely than not in that position because of some traumatic experience they've gone through while serving the country.

But the young and poor? And by that I mean those lazy, whining, shitbag millenials who think the world owes them free insurance, and rent, and college tuition and money to buy weed because their part-time gig at Starbucks doesn't make ends meet and they can't stay sober long enough to finish up school and get a real job? I'm sorry, but fuck'em. I hope they die on the streets, preferably at a BLM/ANTIFA protest. See if Bernie Sanders pays for the funeral. I wish an investigative reporter would look into how much AOC or the rest of those retarded twats in "The Squad" actually give to charity each year from their over $174,000 annual salaries, or how much time they each spend volunteering at charity organizations. I'd wager a good bet that I'm far more charitable than all of them put together.
 
Keihan said:
As I said, I like Trump's rationale.
Click to expand...
Thats a fuckin scary statement. All your credibility just went down the shitter imho.
 
Keihan said:
Any individual who comes to a forum dedicated to paid sexual services looking for "credibility" has far greater personal, emotional and security issues than I ever will, IMHO.
Click to expand...
If you only posted something other than you politics name dropping maybe I'd give you a second thought. Highly unlikely. Keep on having a great personal, emotional, and secure life my friend :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenchy
just4fun said:
If you only posted something other than you politics name dropping maybe I'd give you a second thought.
Click to expand...

And any male who comes to a forum dedicated to paid sexual services seeking a "second thought" from another older male member of that forum probably has some unresolved sexual identity issues to work out. But how magnanimous and insightful of you to surmise that a person as obviously lost and deplorable as myself might find some sort of value, solace and redemption in the prospect of you giving me that precious, coveted and fleeting second thought. I only hope you're as charitable with all the other younger male members of the forum :).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frenchy and just4fun
Keihan said:
I only hope you're as charitable with all the other younger male members of the forum :).
Click to expand...
Hoping gets you nowhere. Only free advice I can give is.....walk down the hill instead of running. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudsy and Frenchy
Keihan said:
You're giving me that second thought, after all :):):).
Click to expand...
hahahaha No, it's just free advice :p (I've just had a very difficult time understanding your defending of the fearless one. Then again, I wasn't born and raised in West Virginia)
 
Come on guys, get a room already. The air is so full of love and desire I am getting a hard-on. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMcguyver, Acid Burn and Frenchy
MikeH said:
Come on guys, get a room already. The air is so full of love and desire I am getting a hard-on. :p
Click to expand...
That was the plan :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudsy and MikeH
I actually do have a more serious, on-topic question. In the very off chance I'm able to visit again in the early new year, would I look out of place wearing one of those white KN95 or N95 masks? Only reason I ask is because I'll be trying very hard to go gaijin incognito and avoid any understandable discrimination directed toward foreign tourists. My other half will obviously have no problem, and neither do I, normally, but observant Japanese can sometimes pick me out...or at least be suspicious.

Pre-COVID, I remember that anyone wearing a black or non-standard white Family Mart mask was outed as Chinese/Korean and treated accordingly, at least by my racist other half and her family. But I noticed tonight during the Japan news broadcast that Gov. Koike was wearing some sort of lace-looking mask during her press conference. Is it anything goes now?

I have a stockpile of around 200 KN95 masks, and then another 100 N95 masks for the end times. I was planning to modify the straps to make them more comfortable for any possible upcoming trip. Or maybe I'll just ask my other half to make me a sign to hang around my neck that says, "I WAS VACCINATED, PROMISE!"
 
Last edited:
MikeH said:
Let me know when your profile in Libe is up!
Click to expand...

Never say never. When I was very young, people thought I was a little girl. Even when I was 9 or 10, relatives used to parade me around to their racist Japanese old lady friends who would remark on how beautiful my skin was, just like a girl's. I was probably a child molester's dream.

So with that in mind, better save up. I won't come cheap, that's for sure.
 
Keihan said:
I actually do have a more serious, on-topic question. In the very off chance I'm able to visit again in the early new year, would I look out of place wearing one of those white KN95 or N95 masks? Only reason I ask is because I'll be trying very hard to go gaijin incognito and avoid any understandable discrimination directed toward foreign tourists. My other half will obviously have no problem, and neither do I, normally, but observant Japanese can sometimes pick me out...or at least be suspicious.

Pre-COVID, I remember that anyone wearing a black or non-standard white Family Mart mask was outed as Chinese/Korean and treated accordingly, at least by my racist other half and her family. But I noticed tonight during the Japan news broadcast that Gov. Koike was wearing some sort of lace-looking mask during her press conference. Is it anything goes now?

I have a stockpile of around 200 KN95 masks, and then another 100 N95 masks for the end times. I was planning to modify the straps to make them more comfortable for any possible upcoming trip. Or maybe I'll just ask my other half to make me a sign to hang around my neck that says, "I WAS VACCINATED, PROMISE!"
Click to expand...


It is pretty much anything goes ...... but as supply normalized locals tended to go back to their standard issue masks. I think you would "stand out" if you went with a KN95/N95.... maybe save those for the plane and local transport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acid Burn and Keihan
Got it, appreciate the tips. Will save the industrial stuff for the plane ride over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.